Bem's Exotic is Erotic

“Although some of the (very few) individuals to whom I have been attracted…have been men and some have been women, what those individuals have in common has nothing to do with either their biological sex or mine—from which I conclude, not that I am attracted to both sexes, but that my sexuality is organized around dimensions other than sex.” -Sandra Bem

http://www.psychwiki.com/wiki/Bem%27s_Exotic_Becomes_Erotic_Theory

I've been slowly working through psychwiki, alphabetically, and thought this theory worth commenting on.  It is an interesting read, especially when what it suggests is expanded to bisexuality.

Basically, the theory reduces all sexuality to an interest in the unknown. Children who gender conform at a young age become interested in the opposite gender because they don't understand them at the base level they understand the motivations of the group that was their peers, and vice verse for nonconforming.  But what about bisexuality?  That would suggest an interest in both... which for me means that open and curious mind will have a strong tendency toward bisexuality.  Not for experimentation's sake, but because they want to understand both sides motivation to the deepest level possible.

Also, the theory seems to be proven wrong by long-term relationships.  I'm aware that there exist many long-term relationships where neither party understands the other, despite the years.  But there are certainly relationships in which the partners understand each other very deeply, haven't taken the time to learn movitation and background.  It would seem that once you learn enough, you'd become less interested because the "

Log (edited for compactness):
<Foxxxy> so what happens when the unknown becomes know, does the sexual drive get reduced at all, would they lose interest ?
<Fillyosopher> the theory would say no, because you can't really understand the other person at the same level as those who you've interacted with since (guess) 5. If I was going to criticize it, I would say that the model doesn't allow for gender fluidity.  If you want to understand the exotic and you invest the time to become it, then what happens to interest?
<Fillyosopher> Which suggests that eroticism resides in other realms as well.  I'm not sure this theory can explain fetishes, for example.
<Foxxxy> well I'm basing this on is a completely non-biological sexual attraction. As you get to know a person, would you desire to be intimate and erotic reduce?
<CherryLeaf> Depends. I think the state after curiosity is simply being comfortable because the unknown is now known. Who better to spend life with than someone you understand and whom understands you completely?
<Fillyosopher> There are multiple levels of knowledge.  You might be able to guess a person's action, but their motivations will remain an enigma to you because you cannot return to the childlike state which gave you the fundamental reasons for your actions.  At least, that would be my reply in defense of the theory.
<Foxxxy> but still
<Bits> we would probably be more focused on mental intimacy than physical, but it seems to assume social acceptance of fluid gender
<Foxxxy> remember, the whole hypothesis I formed did not revolve around physical beauty or gender
<Fillyosopher> This model don't assume that physical gender is important in the least, only the exterior performance of gender.  The conformity to the social conception of how a gender acts. that will be partially appearance  which isn't easily avoidable, but will be just as important to other aspects.
<Bits> Oh, I was assuming you were referring to identical people with identical roles, and only experiential differences from which societal roles would form